527-9 Lenox Avenue Realty Corp. v. Ninth Street Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

527-9 Lenox Avenue Realty Corp. v. Ninth Street Associates

200 A.D.2d 531, 606 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 631

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 531 (527-9 Lenox Avenue Realty Corp. v. Ninth Street Associates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

527-9 Lenox Avenue Realty Corp. v. Ninth Street Associates, 200 A.D.2d 531, 606 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered December 22, 1992, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff and third-party defendants summary judgment on all issues of fraud, misrepresentation, lack of consideration and champerty, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

It is not disputed that the appealing defendants defaulted on a mortgage held by plaintiff, or that plaintiff exercised a valid right of acceleration after proper notice. The appealing defendants do not offer any valid affirmative defense to plaintiff’s cause of action for foreclosure. The agreement recited that the written contract contained all representations made as to physical condition, rents, leases, expenses, operation or other matters concerning the premises, and thus the assertion of fraudulent inducement based on alleged oral misrepresentations pertaining to the above is without merit (see, Citibank v Plapinger, 66 NY2d 90, 94-95). As the appealing defendants were not parties to the underlying conveyance, they have no standing to raise the issue of lack of consideration (see, County of Tioga v Solid Waste Indus., 178 AD2d 873, 874). Lastly, there is nothing in the record that raises a triable issue with respect to champerty. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered December 22, 1992, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff and third-party defendants summary judgment on all issues of fraud, misrepresentation, lack of consideration and champerty, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

It is not disputed that the appealing defendants defaulted on a mortgage held by plaintiff, or that plaintiff exercised a valid right of acceleration after proper notice. The appealing defendants do not offer any valid affirmative defense to plaintiff’s cause of action for foreclosure. The agreement recited that the written contract contained all representations made as to physical condition, rents, leases, expenses, operation or other matters concerning the premises, and thus the assertion of fraudulent inducement based on alleged oral misrepresentations pertaining to the above is without merit (see, Citibank v Plapinger, 66 NY2d 90, 94-95). As the appealing defendants were not parties to the underlying conveyance, they have no standing to raise the issue of lack of consideration (see, County of Tioga v Solid Waste Indus., 178 AD2d 873, 874). Lastly, there is nothing in the record that raises a triable issue with respect to champerty. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 531, 606 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/527-9-lenox-avenue-realty-corp-v-ninth-street-associates-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack